Evidence of What Edwards as VP Nominee Would Add to the Obama Ticket

[Time for change]

When history judges us, as a nation and as individuals, it will ask: what did we do to end poverty? How we answer this call will forever define us as a nation – John Edwards

A few days ago I posted an essay on DU advocating Barbara Boxer as the Democratic nominee for Vice President. I was surprised to find that one of the most frequent objections to that idea was that she is “too liberal” – or more accurately, that she would be perceived as being “too liberal”. Probably most DUers who expressed that objection are liberals themselves, but they are afraid that the perception of a “too liberal” VP on the Obama ticket would hurt our chances of taking back the White House.

The reason that I bring this up in a post where I discuss the value of having John Edwards as the VP nominee is that I foresee many DUers objecting to him for the same reason (“too liberal”) – so I want to address that issue first. I proposed Senator Boxer as a great choice based mainly on three issues that I consider to be of overwhelming importance: Her efforts to protect our Constitution, including her public advocacy of impeachment (scroll to top) of George Bush; her consistent and forceful opposition to the Iraq War; and her staunch support of fair and transparent elections, as demonstrated by her being the only U.S. Senator to officially object to the results of the 2004 Presidential election, and her co-sponsoring of the Count Every Vote Act.

The primary issue that characterized John Edwards’ campaign for President, in both 2004 and 2008, was the reduction and elimination of poverty in our country. That, of course, is a liberal issue, and it is the main reason why he was my favorite candidate for President once it became evident to me that Kucinich had no chance.

It is true, of course, that our useless corporate news media would portray both Barbara Boxer and John Edwards as ultra-liberals if either one received the nomination for VP – just as they always do with Democratic candidates (you may recall that John Kerry was touted as “the most liberal U.S. Senator” in 2004, as Obama is now in 2008). How would they go about doing that? They would do it the same way that they always do it – simply by repeating it over and over again.

How about if they decided instead to paint Boxer and Edwards as ultra-liberals by actually talking about their stands on major issues – that is, by talking about Boxer’s opposition to the Iraq War, her efforts on behalf of election integrity, and her opposition to George Bush’s repeated violation of our laws and Constitution, and Edwards’ plans for eliminating poverty, repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, or making good quality health insurance available to all Americans? No, I don’t think they’d want to go there, as they are well aware that most Americans are with Boxer and Edwards on these issues. So instead, they would simply repeat the word “liberal” whenever referring to Boxer or Edwards (and Obama too, of course), and hope that it sticks – just like they would do with any Democratic candidate for President or VP.

But I think that the American people are catching on to that disingenuous game, and our corporate news media is losing their credibility. If we want to facilitate their loss of credibility, as we must, we must challenge them on these issues. We must demand that they explain their accusations, rather than just repeat them over and over again.


Electoral evidence for what Edwards would add to the Obama ticket

In mid-May, polls were performed by Survey USA in several swing states (and some others), pitting Obama vs. McCain, alone, and with several different combinations of VPs, using four potential VPs who are mentioned as possible running mates for McCain and Obama, respectively. For McCain, the four potential running mates were Mike Huckabee, Joe Lieberman, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty (Governor of Minnesota). For Obama, the four potential running mates were Edwards, Ed Rendell, Kathleen Sebelius, and Chuck Hagel. I can’t explain why those particular choices were used.

In presenting the results below, I averaged the results for the Democratic pairing for each of the four Republican pairings, except of course when comparing Obama vs. McCain alone. Here are the results from 8 swing states (which is all I could find):

Iowa
Obama/Sebelius -1
Obama/Hagel +2
Obama/Rendell -1
Obama/Edwards +18
Obama v. McCain alone +9

Ohio
Obama/Sebelius + 2
Obama/Hagel +2
Obama/Rendell +2
Obama/Edwards +14
Obama v. McCain alone +9

Virginia
Obama/Sebelius -2
Obama/Hagel -3
Obama/Rendell -2
Obama/Edwards +13
Obama v. McCain alone +7

Missouri
Obama/Sebelius -5
Obama/Hagel -7
Obama/Rendell -8
Obama/Edwards +6
Obama v. McCain alone +2

Oregon
Obama/Sebelius +2
Obama/Hagel +3
Obama/Rendell +2
Obama/Edwards +12
Obama v. McCain alone +10

Minnesota
Obama/Sebelius -1
Obama/Hagel -2
Obama/Rendell -3
Obama/Edwards +11
Obama v. McCain alone +5

Wisconsin
Obama/Sebelius E
Obama/Hagel -1
Obama/Rendell -1
Obama/Edwards +11
Obama v. McCain alone +6

Michigan (only Romney used for McCain’s running mate in this one)
Obama/Sebelius -16
Obama/Rendell -17
Obama/Jim Webb -19
Obama/Joe Biden -18
Obama/Wes Clark -15
Obama/Bill Richardson - 14
Obama/Hillary Clinton - 5
Obama/Al Gore -5
Obama/Edwards -3
Obama v. McCain alone -4


Interpretation and explanation of polling results

For every state, the three potential VP candidates other than Edwards did worse when compared against the average of the four McCain/VP pairs than Obama did against McCain in a one on one match-up. Name recognitions is probably an important factor in that. Huckabee and Romney were McCain’s main competition for the Republican nomination for President this year, and Joe Lieberman is also very well known. Probably Sebelius, Rendell, and Hagel are less well known nationally than those three.

The reason for McCain’s very strong showing in Michigan is obviously his pairing up with Romney for each of the polls. Romney’s father is the former Governor of Michigan, and Michigan used to be Mitt Romney’s home state.

The most striking finding in this series of polls is how well Edwards did in every single one of them. He performed better than each of the other Democratic VP candidates in each poll, and the Obama/Edwards pairings did substantially better against McCain/VP pairings in each state than Obama did against McCain alone. I have never seen a potential VP candidate add so many additional votes to a presidential ticket.

What is the reason for Edwards’ exceptionally strong showings in these polls?

Beyond the fact that John Edwards is an especially strong candidate, I can’t add anything else. But given Edwards’ Presidential polling data against each of the major Republican Presidential candidates this year, these data should not be that surprising. As I discussed a few months ago in this post, titled “Edwards’ Dilemma: The Most Popular Candidate in the U.S. Polls Only 12% of His Own Party’s Vote”, of the more than 20 major Republican and Democratic party presidential candidates in 2008, John Edwards consistently polled better against the opposition party than any of the other candidates, consistently beating every Republican candidate by a greater margin than any other Democratic candidate. Yet, he generally polled only in the range of 10% to 16% of his own party’s vote, except for one brief spike into the low 20s. Clearly, he fared much better than Obama or Clinton against the Republican candidates with Independent and Republican voters, but couldn’t compete with them against Democratic voters. That was very surprising to me, since he was clearly, in my opinion, the most liberal of the three candidates. But that’s the way it was.

So, what we’re seeing in these polls of VP pairings is Edwards’ strength as a Presidential candidate in the general election being translated into strength as a VP candidate. The Obama/Edwards pairings are so strong that they win every single swing state (in these polls) by a substantial amount, except for Michigan when McCain is paired with Romney. Unless there is a major change between now and November, an Obama/Edwards ticket seems likely to result in an electoral and popular vote landslide. And I seriously doubt that there is any running mate that McCain could choose that would change that.


Another important reason I’d like to see Edwards as the VP nominee

In a previous post I discussed 8 important reasons why I believed Edwards to be a great candidate for President. Those same reasons apply for Vice President. I’ve heard many people repeat the old saw that the job of VP is insignificant. But recent decades have proven an exception to that rule. Walter Mondale, George Bush Sr., Al Gore, and Dick Cheney have been very influential as VPs. Barack Obama, having the type of personality that causes him to reach across the isle to seek input from Republicans, would certainly also be the type (I would hope) to allow his VP to play an important role in his administration – if I’ve judged him correctly.

As I noted above, my primary reason for favoring Edwards is his efforts and plans for eliminating poverty in our country. That is an issue that has been very unpopular amongst politicians in our country for many decades now, as the poor have had disproportionately small influence on our elections. Consequently it takes a lot of courage, in my opinion, to even mention the subject, let alone make it the central issue of your presidential campaign. For that, I have a great deal of admiration for John Edwards.

I believe that there is no other issue that is more in accordance with the ideals on which our country was founded:

… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

What this means, for anyone who cares to take this document seriously, is that everyone has the right to an opportunity for a decent life. With millions of children born into poverty in our country, and with the income gap between rich and poor at record high levels, though that right may exist in theory in our country, it does not exist in fact.

I do believe that as Vice President, John Edwards would be very influential and productive in helping to secure that right for all Americans. And as the VP nominee for the Democratic Party he would greatly facilitate a Democratic victory this November.

[Andy823]

1. I agree with you.

I was an Edwards supporter till he dropped out, and would love to see him as VP, and then run for president after 8 years as VP, but he says he doesn't want that job. I think maybe he wants to be able to do more than a VP could do, like maybe the AG. I think he would do great taking on corporate america as the AG. Whatever he decides to do, I know he will do a great job.

[robinlynne]

12. Yes Edwards would be the most amazing AG! He does not want to be VP.

And we still don't really know why he dropped out so suddenly.

[JDPriestly]

2. Edwards is my favorite candidate, but I think he would be

uncomfortable running once again as VP. Also, Obama probably needs a running mate with strong international experience.

Most of the VPs you suggest don't have that.

Why don't the numbers in most of the states include an Obama/Clark ticket?

[Time for change]

10. I was thinking, as you were, that it would be good for the VP nominee to

have some military experience (Such as Clark or Webb), because that would help make up for the lack of foreign policy experience of Obama, notwithstanding his excellent judgment, as evidenced by his opposition to Iraq prior to the onset of war.

But just look at those numbers! None of the so-called "swing states" are swing states any more if an Edwards/Obama ticket runs.

As for why the numbers in this post don't include an Obama/Clark ticket, I can't answer that, as I said in my OP. Maybe they thought that their list included the most likely VPs. Whereas it appears to me that their Republican list does in fact include the most likely running mates for McCain, the Democratic list is surprising to me if it's meant to include the most likely candidates. Especially the presence of Hagel was hard for me to understand, since he is a Republican -- though certainly one of the least obnoxious Republicans. But note that Clark does appear in the Michigan numbers -- and Edwards polls much better than him there.

[LakeSamish706]

3. Although I would prefer an Edwards AG, if he makes that much difference...

on the ticket as VP then by all means thats the spot for him. I also was an Edwards supporter before he dropped out.

[Turner Ashby]

4. I adore Edwards. I think he would take names as an AG.

I'm afraid he would feel like a has been as the VP again. What about Webb as VP, and Edwards as AG. A kick ass cabinet.

[Time for change]

15. I wouldn't mind at all to see Edwards as AG and Webb as VP

But those numbers of Edwards for VP are sooooooooooo impressive. With him on the ticket the swing states appear to no longer be swing states. And undoubtedly, there will be then several states previously in the McCain column that are now swing states.

[WA98070]

21. Webb would hurt with women

[djp2]

31. Same here

go either way, but he looks very strong as VP

[NAO]

5. I think Edwards made a public statement "no VP"

I think he said something to the effect that he is not interested in, and will not accept VP.

[Time for change]

7. Yes, but apparently he has changed his mind

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/14/edwards_told_aides_he_would_consider_veep_role.html

Also, though I feel that Obama would probably win without him, having him on the ticket would certainly increase his chances. In anticipation of election tricks that are bound to be perpetrated by the Republicans, having a decent cushion may be very important. Edwards would appear to give him that. It's hard for me to imagine him turning Obama down if Obama feels that his presence would be of substantial service to the ticket.

[jazzjunkysue]

6. Edwards as VP would mean Edwards as President in 8 years.

:loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya::loveya:

[madeline_con]

17. A double whammy of two-term Democrats!

What a coup! I like it!

[TexasObserver]

8. I'm totally down with Obama-Edwards.

If Obama asks John to serve, he's duty bound to do it.

[Mythsaje]

9. It should come as no surprise

that I'd be happy to see J.E. as VP or AG.

[brer cat]

11. Thank you for another excellent post. n/t

[mconvente]

13. It's tied to his name recognition

Granted, I think Edwards would make the best VP for Obama, and would add to the map, but the reason he is doing so much better than say an Obama/Sebelius ticket is because way more people know about Edwards than Sebelius. At least right now in the game.

[RufusTFirefly]

18. Yes. mconvente nails it.

Although I love the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket (my third and second choices, respectively), I think the polling is primarily measuring name recognition.

That said, both men are charismatic, photogenic, energetic, principled, and very clever. Although I'm a little leery of symbolism, an Obama/Edwards ticket would send a clear signal both at home and abroad that the eight-year nightmare is finally ending and that America is once again becoming the country that has inspired so many all over the world.

[Time for change]

27. Only partially

Name recognition undoubtedly explains at least in part why he does so much better than Sebelius, Rendell, and Hagel.

But he is also doing much better paired with Obama against ANY of the combinations of McCain and the others, than Obama is doing v. McCain alone. That means that he is far more popular than Romeny, Huckabee, or Lieberman, and that certainly is not explained mainly by name recognition. Also, I find it highly unlikely that McCain could choose anyone as a running mate who would add to the value of his ticket any more than those other three.

Edwards really adds quite a few points to the ticket, and that is something that I've never seen a VP do.

[defendandprotect]

14. Edwards . . . GOOD! . . . . Any DLC candidate . . . BAD! ----

[onehandle]

16. Fine by me. nt

[tkmorris]

19. YES! Now if only Obama will see it the same way

I couldn't possibly say it any better than the case you already laid out, but I will add that Edwards' stance towards poverty and the issues of the poor, in addition to his health care ideas, are exactly why I want to see him as VP. Not only can he influence the agenda from that position but I would hope to see him run again himself once Obama's tenure ends.

[drm604]

20. Yes!

Now that would be a real "dream ticket".

[bleever]

22. K&R for all the consideration

behind the conclusion.

And: I like the conclusion, if as VP he were to have the powers sufficient to clean up the mess that emanated from the powers of his predecessor.

[mcollier]

23. Good ahead... Make my day!

Even Kevin James admits Barack Obama's The One - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxT8NiZ67-E

[Time for change]

41. Edwards as VP or as AG would be great

I think that he would clean up a lot.

But it would be even better to have him on the VP ticket if that means helping Obama to win the election, as these polls would certainly suggest it would.

[adnelson60087]

24. Edwards' view and actions regarding poverty

is a major part of his appeal, as is his tenacity. He's a tough SOB and I think Obama could use that, as he is seen as kind of weak and touchy-feely among many parties. Also, don't forget that white middle class voters do matter in all states, including the Red states, and Edwards' message of poverty and corporate responsibility (especially with $4 gas) is a winner!

[Kansas Wyatt]

25. And just like DimSon insured himself against an assassination with DeadEye Dick

Obama would guarantee himself from being removed by the 'Powers That Be' with the selection of John Edwards as Vice President.

The 'Powers That Be' fear a John Edwards Presidency more than they fear a Barack Obama Presidency, because John Edwards would fight back ruthlessly in this Class War we are allegedly NOT having.

[Time for change]

37. I agree -- that's a point I hadn't thought of

It's a morbid point, but a good and valid one. All candidates need their security detail. But Edwards would provide as much security as anything -- unless they planned a simultaneous attack on Edwards to take him out of the picture.

[varelse]

26. This is why I voted for Edwards in California's primary

and I do think he would be an excellent choice for VP.

[djp2]

32. Ditto

Was Edwards supporter, voted for him in Calif. I LIKE the guarantee idea above!

[Phred42]

28. I voted for Edwards even AFTER he dropped out. But I doubt he'll go for VP again

Besides - he didn't even deliver his home state last time.
and he's said several times he's not interested.

Don't get me wrong - I'D LOVE TO SEE IT!

Think of it - 8 years of Obama - then another 8 years of Edwards! ...with Dems holding a majority in both house (real Dems - Progressive Dems, not the phucking DLC and BlueDogs crap) - oopps - sorry....I just soiled myself. ;)

We might just straighten out the destruction that the Reich has caused in the past 8

:bounce: :kick:

[Time for change]

29. Edwards apparently changed his mind about not accepting the VP slot if offered

by saying that he would consider it. And what would cause him to consider it in a positive light? The same thing that would cause most people to do that -- if the presidential nominee told him that his presence on the ticket is needed:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/14/edwards_told_aides_he_would_consider_veep_role.html

As far as not delivering his home state in NC in 2004, I don't consider that a big deal. Just look at the data in this OP -- double digit leads in the good majority of "swing states" when Obama and Edwards are paired. Unless the art of elections fraud has improved significantly since 2004, those are fraud proof leads. And those are in the so-called swing states.

[Phred42]

30. You raise my hopes!

:toast:

[rucky]

33. A true CHANGE ticket!

I'm warming up to it more than "white-haired white guy with military background"

[Blue Belle]

34. I don't think Edwards would be labled "Too Liberal"...

He didn't get cited for being too liberal in 2004 - and that's when Rove & Co. were running the show. I think Edwards is an excellent choice for VP.

[ShadowLiberal]

35. If Edwards gives Obama a 10%+ boost why didn't Kerry win with Edwards?

I've posted this before in a threat posted like a month ago about those very same polls. I don't buy them for a second, they are very unrealistic.

For one thing Kerry LOST states like Ohio and Iowa with Edwards on the ticket, yet Edwards is supposed to deliver those states to Obama by an astounding 15% margin of victory? Edwards, the guy who couldn't even bring in his own state in 2004?

Edwards, a guy who never even lived in Iowa or Ohio or any of those other states, and therefore won't have a home field advantage? I can maybe see a couple of point boost in Iowa from Edwards, but not a 10% boost over the other choices.

Besides that, something to keep in mind is that a lot of people polled about people like Sebelius probably don't even know who the heck they are, or only know their name and occupation, and nothing more.

[Snotcicles]

36. Blackwell. nt

[Time for change]

39. The Republicans paired with McCain in these polls have very good name recognition

Huckabee, Romney, and Lieberman have every bit as much name recognition as Edwards. Yet, when Edwards is added to the Obama ticket, along with those Republicans being added to the McCain ticket, Edwards does a lot more to boost the Obama ticket than those others help McCain.

The fact that Edwards didn't deliver his home state in 04 is not very relevant. NC is a very conservative state.

Survey USA is a well known professional polling organization. What are saying? That they made this up? Or that they don't know how to conduct a scientific poll accurately?

This is a very different year than 2004. In 2004 our country contained approximately equal numbers of Dems and Reps. Today the Democrats have a double digit advantage in registration by party.

[Cleita]

38. With all the doublespeak that we have been brainwashed with in the last

thirty years no one knows what too liberal is. Barbara Boxer and John Edwards are actually social democrats and their positions come from common sense and an understanding of what government for the people and by the people is. Any position right of that is frankly anti-American and not in line with either our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. Too liberal to me are people who can't separate personal responsibility from the need to regulate everyone for their own good like I think making smokers into criminals because it's bad for their health is an example of this.

[Time for change]

40. I agree completely

There is nothing that I can see that should be considered "too liberal" about Boxer or Edwards. The Republicans have managed to defame the word "liberal", and having been successful in that through their constant repetition of lies, now they use the word to brand any Democratic candidate for high office.

[Paula Sims]

42. How about Edwards on the Supreme Court!

He already said he doesn't want the VP slot, and frankly, I think he'd do more good as either AG or better yet, on the Supreme Court!


Paula

[saracat]

43. John should not have to play "second fiddle" to anyone ever agaim.

He has repeatedly refused this position. Leave it alone. He can accomplish a great deal more on his own without being "hindered" by the VP spot. He deserves better than this.

[JamieJ]

44. But who we'd like and who's the best choice are not the same thing

I'm not sure, and I'm a huge Edwards fan. So of course I'm not only biased, but I know my views are at odds in many areas with those of the essential swing or otherwise unsure voters. And most of the people reading this blog are in the same boat.

Until Hilary went postal, my major objection to her was that I never felt she'd bring on board as many of these hazy middle voters as she'd likely turn off. She's always been outrageously unpopular among large groups of voters, on the right and in the center especially. I debate this with my mother on a regular basis (she's Edwards' no. 1 fan, but as a 72-year-old feminist she was excited about Hilary once Edwards dropped out, by May she'd come over to the Obama side). You have to think not only about who you want to win, but also about who is likely to win or help. Personally, I want Edwards/Obama, I'd love Obama/Edwards too, but I think what's needed is a VP on the ticket who can assuage the irrational fears of at least some of those fence-sitters.

And maybe Edwards can. Webb has the issue of his novels, which would provide a lot of fodder to alienate certain groups. I think Edwards' youth is a positive though, as Obama next to someone too old and establishment could dilute his message of change. I'm just not sure. Edwards is possibly too liberal - if he's my first choice and my mother's then he must be. But Edwards as Attorney-General, and then on the Supreme Court, would be superlative.

[TexasObserver]

46. polls indicate that Edwards would help Obama in a number of states

Obama is the candidate who should be able to win this, so his VP has to be someone who most of all does not hurt him in any states. The VP needs to help him in some states. Polls seem to indicate Edwards fits that better than other VPs. Edwards has a generally positive reputation among voters. He's liked.

[Time for change]

48. Look at the numbers in this OP

In every swing state he helps out immensely. I have never seen a VP candidate add that many votes to a ticket, and I doubt that anyone else has either.

[rch35]

45. Edwards just said that he would be open to be vice president.

if you dont feel like finding a link, reply and i will post one.

[Time for change]

47. Here's one

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/05/14/edwards_told_aides_he_would_consider_veep_role.html

And here's a more recent one:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/15/Edwards_would_consider_VP_run/UPI-36541213563600/

[rch35]

49. thanks nt